Singaporean Chinese are racist?

If one is to follow the political narrative in the main media the last few days, on air or in print, one cannot but go away with the idea that the majority Chinese are racist. And extrapolating this kind of silly thinking and talks, as this island moves forward, there is a high likelihood that apartheid is on the card if the govt does not do anything about it. The racial issues are getting so bad that several politicians are giving out warnings that things would get worse if nothing is done today, now. Singapore is going to face racial strife and riots in the future.

The statestimesreview posted an article with this title 'Minister Chan Chun Sing and Sam Tan: Singaporeans, especially Chinese, are racist'. The statestimesreview is an alternative voice in the social media and understandably would have a different slant to the official view. Did Chan Chun Sing and Sam Tan said that, one would have to read what the two actually said and decide for oneself. One thing for sure, this is the impression that the statestimereview had from their political dialogue to convince the people why there is an urgent need for the drastic changes to the Elected Presidency.

Actually there is now a massive govt campaign going on led by ministers to talk on this topic and how racist the majority Chinese population is. One joker even said if nothing is done, in the future there will be no more minority MPs, implying that the Chinese would only vote for Chinese MPs. Is this kind of utterance backed up by empirical data of the past voting patterns?

In the latest by election at Bukit Batok, Ah Mu won hands down by beating Chee Soon Juan. What did it say of the racist Chinese voters? Nothing much really as Ah Mu is likely to be Chinese as Ah Mu sounded like a Chinese name. And I heard he could speak Chinese as well. He may look darker in complexion but to the simple minded Chinese voters he must be Chinese and that was why they gave him a resounding victory against another Chinese.

What about Tharman? Is he also Chinese? His name sounds Chinese as well. And he got the highest percentage of votes in the last GE, higher than the PM. I think the racist Chinese voted for him because they thought he is Chinese. It must be, racist Chinese majority would only vote for Chinese MPs/Minsiters. If you believe the current narrative this must be the case.

What about the past, did any minority politicians got elected by the racist Chinese that would vote only for the same race? Who was David Marshall, Devan Nair, Rahim Ishak, Othman Wok, JBJ, etc etc, were they not voted into office by the racist Chinese? And they stood as single constituency candidates, not lompang and got in by GRC, hanging on to the coat tails of a Chinese ministers.

After so many years of national education and national pledges, is the promotion of a multi racial country a complete failure and the govt now have to resort to legislation to protect the minorities or else they would not be voted into political office? You believe in that?

And what is the wonder solution to ensure that the racist Chinese would vote for the minorities? Have a minority president! Wow, this is really a magical formula that can solve a 50 year racial problem. So simple, so brilliant! And after this is built into the Constitution the racist Chinese majority would no longer be racist or cannot be racist?

What do you think?

PS:  Happy Hari Raya Haji to our Malay and Muslim fellow citizens.

Elected President - The Americans got a good model to copy

Look at Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton fighting it out for the Presidency of the most powerful country in the world, with executive duties and power to conduct wars all over the world. And look at their qualifications? Tsk, tsk, tsk. Now wonder the Americans are scratching their heads on which joker to vote.

Not to worry Americans, there is a new model to learn from, the Singapore model to elect the President. America is such a big and powerful country and they deserve to have a qualified and very clever leader to run the country, not anyhow hantam also can type. Both Trump and Hillary Clinton would be rejected by the Singapore model. We have the world’s most stringent criteria for an elected President, even if his job is mainly ceremonial with two custodial duties, like guarding the nations reserve and appointing of top civil servants. Never mind if the President can still be over ruled by Parliament or be bungled into the car boot and be driven into some dark corners when a rogue govt comes into power.

The Americans must study our new system of qualification for a president very carefully. It is a load of wisdom and for the good of the Americans, And there is a special clause for the minorities in the US which would come in very handy. The blacks and Hispanics would love it, to protect their interests and to make sure they will have a chance to be the President of the USA when their turns come, no need to fight with the  superior white candidates like Trump and Hillary.

Our new formula, waiting to be passed as law and build into the Constitution, is carefully crafted, and very fair and very good, by 9 eminent and highly intelligent individuals, all clear thinking people with the interest of the country and people at heart. And the Americans can simply copy it, without having to sweat the small stuff. We have not registered for copyright purpose and the Americans would not be infringing on our intellectual property rights.  I am also very sure our govt would like to offer this uniquely Singapore formula to the world as the best working model for govt and politics.

Oops, I forgot to mention an important point here. If the formula is to be applied, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would ace the qualifications. One being the CEO of a multi billion dollar company and the other an ex Secretary of State. Just these two qualifications would make them fine candidates of the US Presidency. Never mind about their characters that the Americans are having doubts kike evil woman or con man.

The Americans can vote them out at the Presidential Election. Oops, one more point, under the American system you can only vote one of the two out, and still have to live with the other one.

But not to worry, this formula will prequalify all future presidential candidates and make sure they are the best talents available in the USA. Yes, the Americans can have this brilliant formula for free. No need to say thank you even. Just do a little modification and customisation like $5b company instead of $500m and make the eligibility period for minority candidate to be every 3 terms or 15 years since America tot so many minorities. And don't forget the native Americans, used to be called Red Indians.

What is Shanmugam smoking?

This is the heading in the Today paper, ‘S’poreans must decide if they want President to have real power: Shanmugam’.  I can’t believe this coming from Shanmugam. When have the Singaporeans got any say in the President thing? It is all the govt saying and doing, and going to approve in Parliament. Where is the part that Singaporeans got the right to have a say in this saga?

If Shanmugam is serious in what he is saying, that Singaporeans must decide, then let’s have a referendum on this EP criteria and the drastic changes to have race as a criteria for the election of an EP and all sorts of ridiculous terms to bar the ordinary Singaporeans from the right to be the EP. The whole act is between the govt and 9 members in the Constitutional Commission and later between the PAP MPs voting for it with the WP MPs voting against it.

Where do the Singaporeans come in on this, and have a say? I quote a comment from a commentator in TRE about what some Singaporeans are thinking,

Sg patriot:
September 8, 2016 at 8:26 pm  (Quote)
I don’t even bother to read or hear anything about this EP nonsense.
Pinky has his secret agenda. Every damn law or proposal can be passed or rammed down our throats as Long as PAP and their sycophants are the main players.
Besides, no proposal or law is for the benefit of citizens but for themselves to entrench their power and remain in office indefinitely.

Does the above quote say it clearly what the Singaporeans are thinking and what part are they playing in this Presidency thing?

It seems that someone worked up in the morning and had a brain crash and decided that this is the best thing and should be done regardless of whether Singaporeans agree to it or not. It has nothing to do with what the Singaporeans want. If the Singaporeans have a say in this, do the necessary, call for a referendum for the Singaporeans to decide not because someone thinks it is right and he has to do it.

And the inclusion of race into the Constitution and all the high barriers, are they unconstitutional? Two top judges are in the Commission, and must have thought that these changes are constitutional? Are they? The Law Society and the legal fraternity are silent on this whole episode. Strange, didn't they the most learned men and women with respect to law and legality have any to say about this?

Cheng Bock qualifies

Of course this is just my view and does not matter. But I have my reasons for it and they are logical and took into account the new recommendations by the Constitution Commission.  And I swear I am not under the influence of drugs or smoking some grass to come out with such a conclusion. The two grounds that were quoted to disqualify Cheng Bock, to me, tak pakai, boh tiok.  Why?

From $100m to $500m change should not affect Cheng Bock’s qualification. He qualified the last time based on $100m and should qualify based on the current inflated value of $500m. The current value took into account inflation. So Cheng Bock’s $100m needs to be inflated as well. Just like someone living in a $1m bungalow 20 years ago, the bungalow is now $30m at today’s inflated price. The guy still lives in the same bungalow. His $1m bungalow is now $30m. Sama sama bungalow. You cannot say he is still worth only $1m. The same principle of inflation must apply both ways to be fair and logical. You can’t inflate only those you choose to inflate. You must be consistent or your arguments become like kangaroo talk.

The second point, 5 terms or 30 years would at first glance disqualify Cheng Bock. The question is when should this period start to count?

There are two phases to our Presidency. The first 4 presidents were under a system of appointment by the ruling party. Just because the ruling party did not want to appoint a Malay president cannot be the fault of the system. Any Malay candidate can be appointed by the ruling party to be the president under the old system. So this period cannot be counted under the new ruling as that system did not disadvantage a minority candidate. Want to blame, blame the ruling party for not appointing a Malay president. It was within their right and power to do so.

The counting for the said period of no minority president to give special rights to a minority candidate should start from the Elected President regime, ie from Ong Teng Cheong onwards. So, till now, only 4 terms have passed, and only 20 years have lapsed. There is no need to fill in a minority president yet. Tiok boh, logical or not?  No bluff one. If you still cannot grasp this simple and logical reason, then either you are a hopeless case or insincere or insane.

So there is no need even to consider which minority shall be first on the line as the commencement period starts from Ong Teng Cheong’s term, there was Nathan, 2 terms with both Teng Cheong and Tony Tan one term each. The next president could then either be a Malay or Others since both groups were missing if this continues for another 10 year or one more term.

See, my reasoning quite logical right? Under the new changes, Cheng Bock should still be eligible right? But no, because what I said tak pakai also.  There is a higher logic to apply to rule out Cheng Bok from the race. And the higher logic always win, always right, always rule. You interpret the law to your advantage, suka suka, to what you want the law to be. Are my spellings right or wrong?

Many Singaporeans would just read the main media, and if the main media says right they would simply agree, without bothering to engage the head above their neck to ask if they have been conned. Do not simply believe in the main media. They have their own agenda and want you to believe what they said. You must think for yourself and reason for yourself if you think you are a living thing. Don’t ever let other people think for you and tell you what is right or wrong, what is good or bad.

The World Via The UN Must Condemn Australia For Bullying and Stealing The Timor Sea From The Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste

When Timor-Leste gained its independence from Indonesia on May 20th, 2002, the boundary of its Timor Sea which it shares with Australia had yet to be settled. The Australia-East Timor disputes over maritime boundaries in the Timor Sea have been simmering for a long time. Both Australia and East Timor brought the dispute before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague for arbitration However, Australia pre-empts the case of being decided by the court in favour of East Timor when its Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop and its Attorney General George Brandis jointly declared , " In line with our pre-existing legally binding treaties, ( with Indonesia and not recognized by Timor-Leste government ) Australia will not accept the jurisdiction to conduct hearings on maritime boundaries." This is tantamount to Australia not accepting the tribunal's award on the disputes

Australia in fraudulently referring to its pre-existing treaties with Indonesia as fait accompli does not hold water because they have never been recognized by the East Timorese government and people. However, an interim Timor Sea Arrangement was signed between Australia and the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET ) in July, 2001. The Timor Sea Treaty between Australia and East Timor took effect in April, 2003, and both parties consensously agreed on the exploitation of resources and on January, 2006 , they signed the agreement on certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea in which both agreed to share the dispute for 50 years and make a 50-50 split on the profits in the disputed Greater Sunrise region.

However, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ( UNCLOS ) most oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea fall within East Timor territory. Thus the East Timorese government attempts to settle border disputes with Australia via negotiations on law which was later turned down by Australia.

East Timor protested to to an Australian spying scandal in 2012 , when Australia on the pretext of giving aid to East Timor was able to steal vital information regarding the Timor Sea negotiations which put East Timor to great disadvantage and this intensified the maritime disputes.East Timor then demanded negotiations with Australia to settle the disputes via bilateral talks. Australia has yet to agree to bilateral talks and in the meantime it refused to accept the PCA arbitration case.

Australia was too quick to condemn China in the recent fake and bogus tribunal over the South China Sea issue and its Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull cynically claimed , " It is an important decision , it is one that has been made in accordance with international law and it should be respected by both parties, and indeed by all parties and claiments." It is a shame its Foreign Minister , Julie Bishop doesn't seem to agree when it is applied to Australia's cheating and stealing of East Timor's territorial seas and resources. Julie Bishop reiterated Australia's committment to exercising its rights to freedom of navigation ( referring to South China ) and in her own words to ignore the ruling  would be a serious international transgression " and that Australia would stand with the international community in calling for both sides to treat the arbitration (no doubt illegal and illicit ) as final and binding.

This has exposed the hypocrisy and double standard of Australia for that opinion might have been taken more seriously if Australia followed up on its hollow commendation for multilateralism and international law with adherence to those ideals itself in the context of its disputes with East Timor Republic. In the present case Australia is both bullying East Timor and stealing its territorial seas , thus depriving East Timor of its rightful sovereignty over the Timor Sea.

It must be remembered that for its own shameful and selfish ends , Australia is the only country in the world that endorsed the 1975-1999 Indonesia occupation of East Timor during which more than 180,000 East Timorese soldiers and citizens were killed. Australia was complicit in the atrocities and the only Western nation to recognize Indonesian annexation of Timor-Leste , a means to an end , ensuring the ratification of the 1989 Timor Gap Treaty, between Australia and Indonesia which favoured Australia.

Southernglory1
Thursday, 8th September,20